Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 07:48:21 04/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2001 at 12:15:36, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >I do also care for series of repeated checking moves by one side, but mainly if >it's not always the same piece which is checking. I thought when several pieces >are involved, then it's perhaps an indicator for a dangerous attack and worth >the extensions. Ehile I can follow your argument, I think, that also repeated checks of the Q is dangerous for several reason. We looked at the position of this discussion. Also, I am thinking about typically castled positions. Something like Qxh7+ Kg8f8 Qh8+. It may save a ply here. And the next is queen endgames. After some Q checks, you may see, that an opponent pawn is hangig. And extending repeated checks of Qs can also help to detect perpetual checks early. >Some time ago, I have also experimented a bit with R=3. I came to the conclusion >that the win in search depth is not really worth the risk of missing some >tactics. I think that the real win in null move was from R=1 to R=2. I actually have never tried R=1 (or better only in late endgames). With dynamical null move R=3/R=2 (along the lines of the paper found on Ernst A Heinz's sit, I made very puzzling observations. When I tried it first, in my limited test I found a significant advantage using R=3 when still high search depth remains. In later versions of Yace, this advantage seems to have gone, and I could not find a real difference. Now, it looks like dynamical null move hurts Yace ... It also depends (of course) on the position. I.e. I have seen quite some positions in relatively late endgame (e.g. rook endgames), where aggressive null move really helps. Perhaps, the reason is, that there is no "complicated" tactics, and the pawns/pieces move in a rather natural/predictable way. Regards, Dieter
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.